Asundexian versus Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention with direct-acting oral anticoagulant agents in patients with atrial fibrillation confers a risk of bleeding and limits their use. Asundexian, an activated factor XI (XIa) inhibitor, is an oral anticoagulant that may prevent strokes with less bleeding. METHODS: In a phase 3, international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to receive asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily or standard-dose apixaban. The primary efficacy objective was to determine whether asundexian is at least noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety objective was to determine whether asundexian is superior to apixaban with respect to major bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 14,810 randomly assigned patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 73.9±7.7 years, 35.2% were women, 18.6% had chronic kidney disease, 18.2% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, 16.8% had received oral anticoagulants for no more than 6 weeks, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) was 4.3±1.3. The trial was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 98 patients (1.3%) assigned to receive asundexian and in 26 (0.4%) assigned to receive apixaban (hazard ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46 to 5.83). Major bleeding occurred in 17 patients (0.2%) who received asundexian and in 53 (0.7%) who received apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.55). The incidence of any adverse event appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, treatment with asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily was associated with a higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolism than treatment with apixaban in the period before the trial was stopped prematurely. There were fewer major bleeding events with asundexian than with apixaban during this time. (Funded by Bayer; OCEANIC-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05643573; EudraCT number, 2022-000758-28.).

Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical atrial fibrillation is short-lasting and asymptomatic and can usually be detected only by long-term continuous monitoring with pacemakers or defibrillators. Subclinical atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of stroke by a factor of 2.5; however, treatment with oral anticoagulation is of uncertain benefit. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting 6 minutes to 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive apixaban at a dose of 5 mg twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily when indicated) or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg daily. The trial medication was discontinued and anticoagulation started if subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting more than 24 hours or clinical atrial fibrillation developed. The primary efficacy outcome, stroke or systemic embolism, was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (all the patients who had undergone randomization); the primary safety outcome, major bleeding, was assessed in the on-treatment population (all the patients who had undergone randomization and received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug, with follow-up censored 5 days after permanent discontinuation of trial medication for any reason). RESULTS: We included 4012 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 76.8±7.6 years and a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.9±1.1 (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of stroke); 36.1% of the patients were women. After a mean follow-up of 3.5±1.8 years, stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year) and in 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007). In the on-treatment population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.57; P = 0.001). Fatal bleeding occurred in 5 patients in the apixaban group and 8 patients in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation, apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin but a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ARTESIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01938248.).

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events frequently recur after acute myocardial infarction, and low cholesterol efflux - a process mediated by apolipoprotein A1, which is the main protein in high-density lipoprotein - has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. CSL112 is human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity. Whether infusions of CSL112 can reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: We conducted an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either four weekly infusions of 6 g of CSL112 or matching placebo, with the first infusion administered within 5 days after the first medical contact for the acute myocardial infarction. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes from randomization through 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 18,219 patients were included in the trial (9112 in the CSL112 group and 9107 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference between the groups in the risk of a primary end-point event at 90 days of follow-up (439 patients [4.8%] in the CSL112 group vs. 472 patients [5.2%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.05; P = 0.24), at 180 days of follow-up (622 patients [6.9%] vs. 683 patients [7.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01), or at 365 days of follow-up (885 patients [9.8%] vs. 944 patients [10.5%]; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). The percentage of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups; a higher number of hypersensitivity events was reported in the CSL112 group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors, four weekly infusions of CSL112 did not result in a lower risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo through 90 days. (Funded by CSL Behring; AEGIS-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03473223.).

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia.

BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA Trials.

BACKGROUND: Device-detected atrial fibrillation (also known as subclinical atrial fibrillation or atrial high-rate episodes) is a common finding in patients with an implanted cardiac rhythm device and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Whether oral anticoagulation is effective and safe in this patient population is unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase for randomized trials comparing oral anticoagulation with antiplatelet or no antithrombotic therapy in adults with device-detected atrial fibrillation recorded by a pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy device, or implanted cardiac monitor. We used random-effects models for meta-analysis and rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework (GRADE). The review was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42023463212). RESULTS: From 785 citations, we identified 2 randomized trials with relevant clinical outcome data: NOAH-AFNET 6 (Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial High Rate Episodes; 2536 participants) evaluated edoxaban, and ARTESiA (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation; 4012 participants) evaluated apixaban. Meta-analysis demonstrated that oral anticoagulation with these agents reduced ischemic stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.92]; high-quality evidence). The results from the 2 trials were consistent (I2 statistic for heterogeneity=0%). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]; I2=0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no reduction in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.17]; I2=0%; moderate-quality evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.96-1.21]; I2=0%; moderate-quality evidence). Oral anticoagulation increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.05-2.50]; I²=61%; high-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials are consistent with each other. Meta-analysis of these 2 large randomized trials provides high-quality evidence that oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of stroke in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation and increases the risk of major bleeding.

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Risk of Stroke or Systemic Embolism According to Baseline Frequency and Duration of Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the ARTESiA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ARTESiA trial (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thromboembolism in Patients With Device-Detected Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation), apixaban, compared with aspirin, reduced stroke or systemic embolism in patients with device-detected subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF). Clinical guidelines recommend considering SCAF episode duration when deciding whether to prescribe oral anticoagulation for this population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in ARTESiA. Using Cox regression adjusted for CHA2DS2-VASc score and treatment allocation (apixaban or aspirin), we assessed frequency of SCAF episodes and duration of the longest SCAF episode in the 6 months before randomization as predictors of stroke risk and of apixaban treatment effect. RESULTS: Among 3986 patients with complete baseline SCAF data, 703 (17.6%) had no SCAF episode ≥6 minutes in the 6 months before enrollment. Among 3283 patients (82.4%) with ≥1 episode of SCAF ≥6 minutes in the 6 months before enrollment, 2542 (77.4%) had up to 5 episodes, and 741 (22.6%) had ≥6 episodes. The longest episode lasted <1 hour in 1030 patients (31.4%), 1 to <6 hours in 1421 patients (43.3%), and >6 hours in 832 patients (25.3%). Higher baseline SCAF frequency was not associated with increased risk of stroke or systemic embolism: 1.1% for 1 to 5 episodes versus 1.2%/patient-year for ≥6 episodes (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.59-1.34]). In an exploratory analysis, patients with previous SCAF but no episode ≥6 minutes in the 6 months before enrollment had a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than patients with at least one episode during that period (0.5% versus 1.1%/patient-year; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.85]). The frequency of SCAF did not modify the reduction in stroke or systemic embolism with apixaban (Pinteraction=0.1). The duration of the longest SCAF episode in the 6 months before enrollment was not associated with the risk of stroke or systemic embolism during follow-up (<1 hour: 1.0%/patient-year [reference]; 1-6 hours: 1.2%/patient-year [adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.85-1.90)]; >6 hours: 1.0%/patient-year [adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.63-1.66)]). SCAF duration did not modify the reduction in stroke or systemic embolism with apixaban (Ptrend=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In ARTESiA, baseline SCAF frequency and longest episode duration were not associated with risk of stroke or systemic embolism and did not modify the effect of apixaban on reduction of stroke or systemic embolism. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01938248.

Effects of an Intervention to Improve Evidence-Based Care for People With Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Across Sex, Race, and Ethnicity Subgroups: Insights From the COORDINATE-Diabetes Trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial (Coordinating Cardiology Clinics Randomized Trial of Interventions to Improve Outcomes - Diabetes) demonstrated that a multifaceted, clinic-based intervention increased prescription of evidence-based medical therapies to participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This secondary analysis assessed whether intervention success was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity. METHODS: COORDINATE-Diabetes, a cluster randomized trial, recruited participants from 43 US cardiology clinics (20 randomized to intervention and 23 randomized to usual care). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy (high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist) at last trial assessment (6 to 12 months). In this prespecified analysis, mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess the outcome by self-reported sex, race, and ethnicity in the intervention and usual care groups, with adjustment for baseline characteristics, medications, comorbidities, and site location. RESULTS: Among 1045 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the median age was 70 years, 32% were female, 16% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. At the last trial assessment, there was an absolute increase in the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy in women (36% versus 15%), Black participants (41% versus 18%), and Hispanic participants (46% versus 18%) with the intervention compared with usual care, with consistent benefit across sex (male versus female; Pinteraction=0.44), race (Black versus White; Pinteraction=0.59), and ethnicity (Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic; Pinteraction= 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The COORDINATE-Diabetes intervention successfully improved delivery of evidence-based care, regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Widespread dissemination of this intervention could improve equitable health care quality, particularly among women and minority communities who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03936660.

Restrictive Versus Liberal Transfusion in Patients with Type 1 or Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Prespecified Analysis of the Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The MINT trial raised concern for harm from a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia. Type 1 and type 2 MI are distinct pathophysiological entities that may respond differently to blood transfusion. This analysis sought to determine if the effects of transfusion varied among patients with a type 1 or a type 2 MI and anemia. We hypothesized that the liberal transfusion strategy would be of greater benefit in type 2 than in type 1 MI. METHODS: We compared rates of death or MI at 30 days in patients with type 1 (n=1460) and type 2 (n=1955) MI and anemia who were randomly allocated to a restrictive (threshold of 7 to 8 g/dL) or a liberal (threshold of 10 g/dL) transfusion strategy. RESULTS: The primary outcome of death or MI was observed in 16% of type 1 MI and 15.4% of type 2 MI patients. The rate of death or MI was higher in patients with type 1 MI randomized to a restrictive (18.2%) versus liberal (13.2%) transfusion strategy (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 - 1.67) with no difference observed between the restrictive (15.8% ) and liberal (15.1% ) transfusion strategies in patients with type 2 MI (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.85-1.29). The test for a differential effect of transfusion strategy by MI type was not statistically significant (P-interaction = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The concern for harm with a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute MI and anemia raised in the MINT primary outcome manuscript may be more apparent in patients with type 1 than type 2 MI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

COVID-19 Thrombotic Complications and Therapeutic Strategies.

Shortly after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, clinicians rapidly recognized an apparent association between the disease and both arterial and venous thrombotic complications, which was confirmed in epidemiologic studies. Based on these data, hospitals empirically developed and implemented protocols with different strategies for anticoagulation of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) clarified the role of anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and recently discharged from the hospital. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19, observational comparative effectiveness analyses that provided hints of a benefit from anticoagulation, and finally the RCTs that established which patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation. These RCTs have demonstrated that hospitalized, noncritically ill patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation, but patients who are hospitalized and critically ill, discharged from the hospital, or not hospitalized do not benefit.

De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). FINDINGS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

Effect of Four Hemoglobin Transfusion Threshold Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia : A Target Trial Emulation Using MINT Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: The optimal hemoglobin threshold to guide red blood cell (RBC) transfusion for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of 4 individual hemoglobin thresholds (<10 g/dL [<100 g/L], <9 g/dL [<90 g/L], <8 g/dL [<80 g/L], and <7 g/dL [<70 g/L]) to guide transfusion in patients with acute MI and anemia. DESIGN: Prespecified secondary analysis of the MINT (Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion) trial using target trial emulation methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02981407). SETTING: 144 clinical sites in 6 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 3492 MINT trial participants with acute MI and a hemoglobin level below 10 g/dL. INTERVENTION: Four transfusion strategies to maintain patients' hemoglobin concentrations at or above thresholds of 10, 9, 8, or 7 g/dL. Protocol exceptions were permitted for specified adverse clinical events. MEASUREMENTS: Data from the MINT trial were leveraged to emulate 4 transfusion strategies and estimate per protocol effects on the composite outcome of 30-day death or recurrent MI (death/MI) and 30-day death using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: The 30-day risk for death/MI was 14.8% (95% CI, 11.8% to 18.4%) for a <10-g/dL strategy, 15.1% (CI, 11.7% to 18.2%) for a <9-g/dL strategy, 15.9% (CI, 12.4% to 19.0%) for a <8-g/dL strategy, and 18.3% (CI, 14.6% to 22.0%) for a <7-g/dL strategy. Absolute risk differences and risk ratios relative to the <10-g/dL strategy for 30-day death/MI increased as thresholds decreased, although 95% CIs were wide. Findings were similar and imprecise for 30-day death. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding may have persisted despite adjustment. CONCLUSION: The 30-day risks for death/MI and death among patients with acute MI and anemia seem to increase progressively with lower hemoglobin concentration thresholds for transfusion. However, the imprecision around estimates from this target trial analysis precludes definitive conclusions about individual hemoglobin thresholds. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Apolipoprotein A-I Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction According to Baseline LDL-Cholesterol Levels: The AEGIS-II Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the AEGIS-II trial (NCT03473223), CSL112, a human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity, did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary endpoint through 90 days versus placebo after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Nevertheless, given the well-established relationship between higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and plaque burden, as well as greater risk reductions seen with PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL on statin therapy, the efficacy of CSL112 may be influenced by baseline LDL-C. METHODS: Overall, 18,219 patients with acute MI, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional risk factors were randomized to either four weekly infusions of 6 g CSL112 or placebo. This exploratory post-hoc analysis evaluated cardiovascular outcomes by baseline LDL-C in patients prescribed guideline-directed statin therapy at the time of randomization (n=15,731). RESULTS: As baseline LDL-C increased, risk of the primary endpoint at 90 days lowered in those treated with CSL112 compared with placebo. In patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL at randomization, there was a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in the CSL112 vs. placebo group at 90, 180, and 365 days (hazard ratio 0.69 [0.53-0.90], 0.71 [0.57-0.88], and 0.78 [0.65-0.93]). In contrast, there was no difference between treatment groups among those with LDL-C <100 mg/dL at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, treatment with CSL112 compared to placebo was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular events among patients with a baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. Further studies need to confirm that CSL112 efficacy is influenced by baseline LDL-C.

Anticoagulation in device-detected atrial fibrillation with or without vascular disease: a combined analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation (DDAF) is unknown. Concomitant vascular disease can modify the benefits and risks of anticoagulation. METHODS: These pre-specified analyses of the NOAH-AFNET 6 (n=2534 patients) and ARTESiA (n=4012 patients) trials compared anticoagulation to no anticoagulation in patients with DDAF with or without vascular disease, defined as prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, coronary or peripheral artery disease. Efficacy outcomes were the primary outcomes of both trials, a composite of stroke, systemic arterial embolism (SE), myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism or cardiovascular death, and stroke or SE. Safety outcomes were major bleeding or major bleeding and death. RESULTS: In patients with vascular disease (NOAH-AFNET 6 56%, ARTESiA 46.0%), stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic or pulmonary embolism, or cardiovascular death occurred at 3.9%/patient-year with and 5.0%/patient-year without anticoagulation (NOAH-AFNET 6), and 3.2%/patient-year with and 4.4%/patient-year without anticoagulation (ARTESiA). Without vascular disease, outcomes were equal with and without anticoagulation (NOAH-AFNET 6 2.7%/patient-year, ARTESiA 2.3%/patient-year in both randomised groups). Meta-analysis found consistent results across both trials (I2heterogeneity=6%) with a trend for interaction with randomised therapy (pinteraction=0.08). Stroke/SE behaved similarly. Anticoagulation increased major bleeding in vascular disease patients (edoxaban 2.1%/patient-year, no anticoagulation 1.3%/patient-year; apixaban 1.7%/patient-year; no anticoagulation 1.1%/patient-year; incidence rate ratio 1.55 [1.10-2.20]) and without vascular disease (edoxaban 2.2%/patient-year; no anticoagulation 0.6%/patient-year; apixaban 1.4%/patient-year; no anticoagulation 1.1%/patient-year, incidence rate ratio 1.93 [0.72-5.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DDAF and vascular disease are at higher risk of stroke and cardiovascular events and may derive a greater benefit from anticoagulation than patients with DDAF without vascular disease.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses From COMBINE AF.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty surrounding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with kidney dysfunction. METHODS: Using the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database (data from RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), we performed an individual patient-level network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin across continuous creatinine clearance (CrCl). A multivariable Cox model including treatment-by-CrCl interaction with random effects was fitted to estimate hazard ratios for paired treatment strategies (standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin). Outcomes included stroke and systemic embolism (S/SE), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and death. RESULTS: Among 71 683 patients (mean age, 70.6±9.4 years; 37.3% female; median follow-up, 23.1 months), the mean CrCl was 75.5±30.5 mL/min. The incidence of S/SE, major bleeding, ICH, and death increased significantly with worsening kidney function. Across continuous CrCl values down to 25 mL/min, the hazard of major bleeding did not change for patients randomized to standard-dose DOACs compared with those randomized to warfarin (Pinteraction=0.61). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of ICH at CrCl values <122 mL/min, with a trend for increased safety with DOAC as CrCl decreased (6.2% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of S/SE with CrCl <87 mL/min, with a significant treatment-by-CrCl effect (4.8% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.01). The hazard of death was significantly lower with standard-dose DOACs for patients with CrCl <77 mL/min, with a trend toward increasing benefit with lower CrCl (2.1% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Use of lower-dose rather than standard-dose DOACs was not associated with a significant difference in incident bleeding or ICH in patients with reduced kidney function but was associated with a higher incidence4 of death and S/SE. CONCLUSIONS: Standard-dose DOACs are safer and more effective than warfarin down to a CrCl of at least 25 mL/min. Lower-dose DOACs do not significantly lower the incidence of bleeding or ICH compared with standard-dose DOACs but are associated with a higher incidence of S/SE and death. These findings support the use of standard-dose DOACs over warfarin in patients with kidney dysfunction.

Exploring the Relationship Between Efpeglenatide Dose and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the AMPLITUDE-O Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AMPLITUDE-O (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes) cardiovascular outcomes trial, adding either 4 mg or 6 mg weekly of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist efpeglenatide to usual care reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. Whether these benefits are dose related remains uncertain. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo, 4 mg or 6 mg of efpeglenatide. The effect of 6 mg versus placebo and of 4 mg versus placebo on MACE (a nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes) and on all the secondary composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes was assessed. A dose-response relationship was assessed using the log-rank test and χ2 statistic for trend. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, MACE occurred in 125 (9.2%) participants assigned to placebo, 84 (6.2%) participants assigned to 6 mg of efpeglenatide (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.5-0.86]; P=0.0027), and 105 (7.7%) assigned to 4 mg of efpeglenatide (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.63-1.06]; P=0.14). Participants receiving high-dose efpeglenatide also experienced fewer secondary outcomes, including the composite of MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina (HR, 0.73 for 6 mg, P=0.011; HR, 0.85 for 4 mg, P=0.17), a kidney composite outcome comprising sustained new macroalbuminuria, a ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate or renal failure (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P<0.0001; HR, 0.73 for 4 mg, P=0.0009), MACE or any death (HR, 0.67 for 6 mg, P=0.0021; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P=0.08), a kidney function outcome comprising a sustained ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal failure, or death (HR, 0.61 for 6 mg, P=0.0072; HR, 0.97 for 4 mg, P=0.83), and the composite of MACE, any death, heart failure hospitalization, or the kidney function outcome (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P=0.0002; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P=0.067). A clear dose-response was noted for all primary and secondary outcomes (all P for trend ≤0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The graded salutary relationship between efpeglenatide dose and cardiovascular outcomes suggests that titrating efpeglenatide and potentially other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists to high doses may maximize their cardiovascular and renal benefits. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03496298.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.